Atwater v. Bolden

Filing 19

ORDER signed by Judge John E. Jones II on 3/7/12: Report and Recommendation (doc 16) is adopted; claims are dismissed without prejudice to plaintiff filing two separate complaints; action is dismissed; motion for ifp (doc #4) granted; Administrative order (doc #10) vacated; plaintiff's successive motion for ifp (doc #8) dismissed as moot; clerk directed to close the file on this case.(lg, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA LEWIS RASHAAD ATWATER, Plaintiff, v. OFFICER GABRIEL, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : 1:11-cv-2043 Hon. John E. Jones III Hon. Martin C. Carlson ORDER March 7, 2012 In conformity with the Memorandum issued on today’s date, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson (Doc. 16) is ADOPTED in its entirety. 2. The claims in this action are DISMISSED without prejudice to Plaintiff filing two separate complaints, addressing the separate claims he has against Defendants Officer Gabriel and Officer Bolden in two separate actions. 3. The action is DISMISSED as against Defendant Prime Care Health. 1 4. The Plaintiff’s demand for a specific amount of unliquidated damages is STRICKEN from the amended complaint. 5. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 4) is GRANTED for the sole purpose of filing this action, however no monies shall be deducted from the Plaintiff’s account. Thus, the Administrative Order (Doc. 10) dated November 16, 2011 is VACATED. The Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this Order to the Warden/Superintendent of SCI-Camp Hill, and the Warden/Superintendent is directed not to withdraw funds from the Plaintiff’s account. 6. The Plaintiff’s successive Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED as MOOT. 7. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the file on this case. s/ John E. Jones III John E. Jones III United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?